Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

rennerik writes "Scientists at McGill University in Montreal say they've discovered a new state of matter that could help extend Moore's Law and allow for the fabrication of more tightly packed transistors, or a new kind of transistor altogether. The researchers call the new state of matter 'a quasi-three-dimensional electron crystal.' It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth."

On a nerd side note. We all know Dilithium in reality is a gas. But at the temperatures stated in the article. Would it be able to form a solid? Likely it would NOT be a crystal but it'd be fun to know.

If you did have it in your office, there's not much danger of it blowing up, but the vacuum pumps would be pretty loud.

Intergalactic space is about 2 or 3 Kelvin. Getting down to 100 times colder than that - 20 or 30 millikelvin - requires a Helium 3 dilution fridge. Helium 3 is a rare (and expensive) helium isotope. Physics labs can afford this sort of equipment, but we're not going to be using the setup for gaming anytime soon.

Not to mention, the vacuum pumps, the cold trap and the helium storage system would probably take up most of the space in your cubicle anyway.

If you did have it in your office, there's not much danger of it blowing up, but the vacuum pumps would be pretty loud....

Not to mention, the vacuum pumps, the cold trap and the helium storage system would probably take up most of the space in your cubicle anyway.

They're not talking about cooling your computer that way, but about creating the transistors that way. There's nothing in the article that says that they have to be continuously kept at that temperature.

How can you have something that is 100 times colder than space. I think that space runs at about -270 C, so to be 100 times colder it would have to be -2700 C. I thought absolute zero was -273.15 C at which point all movement is stopped, so how do you get a temperature below that?

TFA doesn't state any specific temperature, but I find the analogy to how "cold" space is rather troubling. Space is really "warm", as it contains energy left from the Big Bang (although no one with a common sense would describe it that way in daily talk), and saying that something is so many times colder than space really just doesn't make sense.
You can always compare sizes, but as heat is a positive size, because you can't have negative energy, you can just say "this is a hundred times hotter than that" or "my freezer is two times as cold as my refrigerator compared to my living room".
The one who thought of this analogy could be talking about degrees on Celsius or Fahrenheit, but then those numbers must be way below absolute zero, or 0 Kelvin, as space is just 2.7 Kelvin, or -270.7 C ( http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html [nasa.gov] ) and taking for granted he is comparing the temperature of space to 0 ÂC, that means that those crystals are actually -27070 C.
And _that_ would be some real frontpage material...

You seem confused. He speaks of "a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space". Intergalactic space has a temperature of about 3K. It does not make sense to talk of degrees C, since C is not an absolute scale. 100 times colder than 3K is 0.03K.

and i really cringed when i read the 100 times colder crap. Seriously, if it's at 0.03 K why not just say that?

It does not work well. 100x colder than 1 C is not 0.01 C, it is -270.27 C. And the reason people don't say 0.03 K is because the average person does not know what K is, but they know space is very cold.

Joe Sixpack asks, "Would that temperature keep by brewskis cold, or would it freeze them? Because that's a drag when they explode, and I have to call Joe Plumber to fix the freezer (after I clean off the venison steaks left over from last season), and he's crabby about taxes or some such nonsense. Pass me another cold one."

One of the reasons the average person does not know what K is, is because they're never expected to know it.

If everyone stopped using Celsius or Fahrenheit in situations where Kelvin would better suited, people would have to actually remember the Kelvin-scale from school-physics or take a minute out of their lives to find out what the Kelvin-scale is.

The researchers call the new state of matter 'a quasi-three-dimensional electron crystal.' It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth.

I don't know why, but I think this will take a while to get to my local PC store.

Neither, Moore's law doesn't apply to this..but that would of course require an understanding of Moore's law. The cost of putting more transistors has started going up, thus ending Moore's law.Unless a fab breakthrough happens. A big one.

Could some other material come up to allow faster processors? you bet, but that wouldn't be Moore's law now, would it?

Really, it's about cost.And the paper Moores's law comes from is about economics, so no changing to processing is still incorrect.However, it does neatly deal with multi-cores.

The Fab costs, at this time, for the next round of doubling the transistors is pretty huge.Whe they ahve to toss 4 out of 5 wafers, the cost to the consumer may become prohibitive. No doubt large orginization will continue upgrading.

From what I've been reading and talking to eopel in the fab industry, we will reach a state where syste

Moore's law is about manufacturing on siliconIf it isn't silicon, then it isn't Moore's law.remember kids, increasing processor speed is a by product of Moore's law/ Moore's law is about cost of manufacturing.

No, Moore's law states that the number of transistors you can put on an integrated circuit for a fixed cost doubles every 18 months. This has nothing to do with the speed at which the transistors run or the material they are made from.

... "...It was discovered using a device cooled to a temperature about 100 times colder than intergalactic space, following the application of the most powerful continuous magnetic field on Earth."

What does this mean? Give us a temperature. At least that would be concrete.

According to wikipedia, intergalactic space is 2.71 Kelvin. I would assume that they mean "100th the temperature of intergalactic space", not "100 times colder than intergalactic space", as the latter is nonsensical and implies that it exists at 100 times colder than intergalactic space is colder than room temperature, meaning -28834 Kelvin (293 - 100 * (293 - 2.73) where we assume that room temperature is 20 degrees centigrade). T

According to wikipedia, intergalactic space is 2.71 Kelvin. I would assume that they mean "100th the temperature of intergalactic space", not "100 times colder than intergalactic space", as the latter is nonsensical and implies that it exists at 100 times colder than intergalactic space is colder than room temperature, meaning -28834 Kelvin (293 - 100 * (293 - 2.73) where we assume that room temperature is 20 degrees centigrade). This is nonsense.

I don't see a problem with "100 times colder than intergalactic space". Temperature is an absolute scale, like size. It's like saying that item X is "100 times smaller than a coin". You don't then compare the size of the coin (say, 0.01m) to the room (say 3m) and then complain that item X is not of size -296 (3 - 100 * (3 - 0.01)).

They do mean 100 times colder! By being below absolute zero, distances and therefore time becomes negative. With sufficient negativity, they can produce a Pentium that'll give you the wrong answer before you provide it with the data!

So when someone says "X is 100 times larger than Y" you instinctively think "X=100*Y", yet when someone says "X is 100 times smaller than Y" you instinctively think "X=Z-100*(Z-Y)" for some arbitrary Z of same unit as Y. Forgive me for not following your erm... logic.

Let's say I have a temperature which is 100 times larger than 27.1 mK, this would be 2.71 K. Indeed 27.1 mK is smaller than 2.71 K and 2.71 K is larger than 27.1 mK. So saying 100 times smaller than 2.71 K should indicate I mean 27.1 mK. In no way is this nonsensical and I'm pretty sure everyone here understands that "X is N times smaller than Y" means multiply Y by the reciprocal of N, similarly "X is N times larger than Y" means multiply Y by N.

Granted this isn't something you'd see in technical writing, but I'm pretty sure Information Week isn't a technical journal, so why be a pedant about it?

Besides AFAIK the most powerful electromagnets on earth are those used in the LHC.

not even close. The LHC magnets are (according to a quick google search) about 8.3 - 10 T. The magnet lab has a 100T magnet that they routinely run at 85T so it's about 10x more powerful than the LHC magnets.

Wait, so somebody discovered a whole new state of matter, and all we have to say is it could extend Moore's Law? I would hope the implications would be just a tad bit more grand for such a discovery than possibly validating somebody's metric for a little while.

100 times colder than 0 K? So, that's what, 0 K? Why not make it 1000 times colder?

(Yes I know space is slightly warmer than absolute zero, but it's still a really weird claim to make - we are only talking about a couple of degrees here)

Also, am I the only one who, upon hearing "discovered a new state of matter", doesn't immediately think "Sweet, we can extends Moore's Law!", but rather "Holy shit, a new state of matter?" Seems like a pretty big discovering on its own, even without being tied to chip manufacturing...

The average temperature out in space is around 3K. Now, three measly degrees may not seem like a lot, but there's a world of difference between 3K and 0K. I'm sure we would all agree that a temperature of 300K is one-hundred times greater than 3K -- likewise, 0.003K is one hundred times smaller than 3K. There are many exotic physical effects which manifest in the millikelvin regime, but I find it unlikely that you'll be playing Team Fortress 10 on your three-dimensional electron crystal computer. More likel

100 times colder than 0 K? So, that's what, 0 K? Why not make it 1000 times colder?

100 times colder than 3 K. So, that's what, 0.03 K?

(Yes I know space is slightly warmer than absolute zero, but it's still a really weird claim to make - we are only talking about a couple of degrees here)

If you knew that it was above 0 K, you shouldn't say 0 K. And it is not weird -- these are normal operating temperatures of some really cool physics work. And the reason we talk about 100x vs. 1000x is that the difference between 100x and 1000x is a good chunk of change.

The researcher, Dr. Guillaume Gervais, is director of McGill University's Ultra-Low Temperature Condensed Matter Experiment Lab. There's nothing in the journal letter about "a new state of matter". The McGill Newsroom article quotes him as saying to the interviewer, "It's actually not quite 3-D, it's an in-between state, a totally new phenomenon" as compared with the 2-D electron crystals that transistors and IC chips are made of. The interviewer, or an editor, thought "Physics -- state -- new state of matter". Engadget's Melanson picked up the error and passed it on uncritically.

Why would we want to extend Moore's law? I mean, why merely double the number of transistors every 18 months (or however it goes)? Why not increase the number of transistors by a factor of five, or ten in a single year? It seems stupid to me to limit yourself.

Since there are already numerous posts invoking the applicability (or not) of Moore's Law, I thought I would start over. Although Gordon Moore certainly formulated his law based on silicon (original is here: http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/ [intel.com].) it can be applied clear back to 1890 with the Hollerith 'computer' that tabulated the 1890 census. When you graph it out, Moore's Law applies to electro-mechanical switches, then to relays, then to vacuum tubes, then transistors themselves (like in a six transistor radio of the 50's), then on to silicon. It's still the same exponential curve, in five separate states, only the last one of which is silicon. Kurzweil discusses this in depth here: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 [kurzweilai.net]. People who claim Moore's Law doesn't apply because this isn't traditional silicon acreage are missing the point, which is that not only is Moore's Law more encompassing than the originally envisioned, it is not going away any time soon. The imminent death of Moore's Law, as always, has been greatly exaggerated.

Intergalactic space is not at 2.7 K. Especially in galaxy clusters, the temperature of the intergalactic medium is often millions of degrees Kelvin. Even in more remote places far from galaxy clusters, it's still much warmer than 2.7 K. The 2.7 K figure is the temperature associated with the cosmic microwave background radiation, not the intergalactic medium.

Here's the problem... when you say things like "x times SMALLER than" and "x times COLDER than" people think "oh, something TIMES something... I have to multiply."

But with diminishing comparisons (smaller, colder, etc) you're actually multiplying by a decimal, which most people regard as DIVISION.

Worse, when you say something like "100 times colder than" people think not just "I have to multiply" but rather "I have to multiply something by 100".

Let's save everyone a headache and if you want to make a comparison, use the most explicit form possible. In this case, "1/100th the temperature of intergalactic space" (or just give us the damn Kelvins).

Read carefully; they're cooling temperature itself! Not just cooler matter, but cooler temperature. This is a major breakthrough. Before you know it, they'll be able to achieve faster speeds, longer lengths, smaller sizes, and deeper depths.

The cosmic microwave background is the electromagnetic energy radiated by the distant reaches of the universe. It corresponds to energy radiated by a roughly 2.7 degrees Kelvin blackbody. That is the temperature of space since under normal conditions nothing can get colder than that temperature.

I can find places in space that are millions of degrees, that doesn't mean space is hot.Add to that that as the Universe expands, the 'background heat' get's lower.Energy throughout the universe is constant*, but the volume is increasing.

The laws of Thermodynamics state that we can't really achieve absolute zero [wikipedia.org] As far as the far reaches of space goes they may be referring to the boomerang nebula which is the coldest place we know of so far - outside of the laboratory. I wish the article had been more specific and quantitative. FYI a really good program to watch if you get a chance is Absolute Zero [pbs.org]

The 3DBB was used by Phineas J. Whoopee, when he was educating Tennessee Tuxedo and his walrus pal, Chumley.

Look at my ID. I am old... old as dirt!:)

I used to watch these, as well as "The World of Commander McBragg", and the ever-popular Underdog. "The secret compartment of my ring I fill with an Underdog super-vitamin energy pill." The people involved in the supposed live-action remake of Underdog should all be lowered into wood chippers feet firs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum [wikipedia.org]
Intersteller space has a density of a million atoms per cubic meter. Intergalactic space has densities closer to one atom per cubic meter. Perfect vacuum is theoretically impossible due to quantum mechanics (I can not explain why, but that makes sense).

Perfect vacuum is theoretically impossible due to quantum mechanics (I can not explain why, but that makes sense).

For any given particle, you can't know its exact position and velocity. Particles can never reach absolute zero because then you would be able to determine their position since you know their velocity would thus be zero given they have no energy by definition of absolute zero. An extension of that then is if you know a particle's velocity you will never be able to determine its position. If you can't determine its position you can't determine whether it is really outside a vacuum. You may be able to say it isn't in the middle of the volume which represents the vaccum but at the boundary you can't say for sure whether the particle is on the inside of the vacuum or outside. This is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. An absolute zero temperature vacuum is definitely impossible due to the uncertainty principle.

You don't need matter to have a temperature. Even in a "perfect" vacuum (i.e. nothing but quantum fluctuation transient particle-antiparticle pairs) there is still radiant energy in the form of photons - and their wavelength distribution corresponds to a temperature.

It's the temperature at which a black-body test object, bathed continuously in photons of that frequency distribution, would neither warm up nor cool down further.

The radiant temperature of the sky far from the influence of nearby galaxies is known as the "cosmic background temperature". It's about 4 degrees absolute - corresponding to the light from the big bang red-shifted down a LOT by cosmic expansion.

Yes. A few degrees above absolute zero. Which means taht "100 times colder" is, of course, physically impossible, or meaningless.

This is what happens when your science reporter flunked high school science.

The phrase "100 times colder" is commonly understood to mean at a temperature 1/100 of that being compared. Average temperature of outer space is 3 K, so, "100 times colder" would be.03 K. So, the phrasing is perfectly acceptable.

Well, if I remember correctly from winters in elementary school:
Space's temperature, according to my 1st grade teacher, is "Really cold"...

If I remember correctly from winters in elementary school:
"Super Cold" is about 2 times colder than "Really Cold"
"F*cking cold" is about 10 times colder than "Really Cold"
"FREEZING" is about 5 times colder than "Cold"
So 100 times colder than intergalactice space would be "Super F*cking FREEZING!" (said while shivering for effect)

Does space even have a temperature? Vacuum insulates rather well and the biggest problem of many space-born devices (think ISS) is getting rid of excess heat. The famous Star Trek line of "It's very cold in space" doesn't really match the reality.

There's the redshifted afterglow of the original Big Bang "fireball", also known as the cosmic microwave background radiation [wikipedia.org]. It's equal to heat radiation of an object at about 3K. If you make something colder than that and throw it into intergalactic space, it'll heat up to that temperature. If something is warmer than that, and there's no heating, then it'll cool down to that temperature. So I'd say space *is* cold.

Closest example of a place that always experiences almost the true temperature of spac